re Gital Satsangh (Avyakta)

[Guest guest]

Advaitina All,

Slightly tangential and late to the proceedings:

 

 

Here my manas (mind) merged into Antahkarana (heart), the Antahkarana with

the Manas merged into Chitta (mind Stuff); the Chitta along with

Antahkarana and Manas merged into Buddhi (intellect) the Buddhi with

Chitta. Antahkarana and Manas merged into Ahankar (egoism); and the

Ahankar along with Buddhi, Chitta, Antahkarana and Manas - all merged into

Absolute Brahma! I found myself reflected everywhere in the whole

Universe! It was all one harmony - full of Wisdom, Infinite Love Perennial

and Bliss Eternal! Where was the body, its tenements and the 'I'! It was

all Satchidananda. (Truth, Wisdom, Bliss)

 

from The Holy Mountain by Bhagavan Shri Hamsa trans. by Shri Purhoit

Swami(intro by W.B.Yeats)(1934)

 

This realisation came by the grace of his Master, Lord Dattatreya who

appeared to him in a physcial form after he had bathed in Gauri Kund. (on

a pilgrimage to Mount Kailasa)

 

I believe this but I also have to ask does this prove this form of

psychological system. There are symbolic truths and the truths of physical

science. The Vedantasara of Sadananda (c.16th.Century) has a good deal of

discussion of the gross and the subtle bodies eg.#99 "Each of the five

elements, viz ether etc., is divided into two equal parts; of the ten parts

thus produced five - being the first half of each element - are each

sub-divided into four equal parts. Then leaving one half of each element,

to the other half is added one of these quarters from each of the other

four elements.

#100: Thus it has been said: "By dividing each element into two equal parts,

and sub-dividing the first half of each element into four equal parts, and

then adding to the other half of each element one sub-division of each of

the remaining four, each element becomes five in one."

 

To discover whether this is science or symbolism a simple test is: 'What

would disprove this?'. The answer must be - nothing. Does that mean that

I have gone over to the ranks of the demythologisers? No. They believed

that there was only one form of truth, the scientific sort. So also do

fundamentalists essentially. For me there is no conflict because they are

not running on the same track.

 

Sankara mentions the subtle body in B.S.B. but in Upadesasahasri he uses the

terms intellect, mind, body and senses; distinctions that are still in use

in ordinary language and useful for commentary though perhaps needing

qualification in the more airy regions of philosophic discourse. Sri

Knight will be posting on this work (upa.sah.) For someone wanting a

compressed and by no means simplified view of Sankara's thought it is a

great book.

 

Best Wishes to all Advetins, ciao and blessings Michael

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Permit me, Mike, to de-detail the "merger" of Bhagavan Shri Hamsa:

 

"SELF-LUMINOSITY REALIZED THAT THE DISPLAY AND SENSE OF DISPLAY WERE

AFTERALL NOTHING BUT LUMINOSITY ALONE".

 

One can reach this realization with or without the appearance of a

Master (Ishtadevata). That Dattatreya appeared in the case of

Bhagvan Shri Hamsa is a matter of detail. The "psychological system"

comprising such details is vindicated as long as the result is

achieved. Moreover, it is very sweet to have such psychological

moorings amidst all our advaitic brainstorming. I am saying this

from personal experience although my ishtadevata hasn't yet been kind

to appear before me. But, don't be in any doubt, She is very much

around.

 

What happened to Bhagavan cannot be compared to the process mentioned

in "Vedantasara", which is known as Pancheekarana and detailed by

Sankara in his "Tatwabodha". Pancheekarana was discussed in detail

by this List. However, I don't think any satisfactory conclusion

emerged. Although Shri Stig Lundgren-Ji promised to answer the

question shortly, we haven't still had the benefit of his views

(Ref: Post # 13386). In that thread, in reply to Sadanandaji, I had

expressed the following view (# 13147):

 

QUOTE

 

With all respect to Sankara, pancheekarana so far has sounded only as

an attempt to explain creation. It cannot be called a theory in the

same sense as atomic theory or the theory of relativity, which have

contributed to the empirical understanding of other phenomena and

stood the tests of time. So, there is no need to locate a fault in

pancheekarana for another person to postulate something entirely

different.

 

In this context, I am a little perplexed why our sages, who

proclaimed that Brahman is desa-kaala-aabhaadida (beyond or not

affected or not conditioned by space and time) excluded time from the

list of elements. They were wise enough to understand the relevance

of space. Why did they leave out time? From their upanishadic

ponderings, it can be assumed that even in their ancient days they

perhaps were able to appreciate Einstein's space-time continuum.

Nevertheless, they failed to accord time the importance they gave

space. Why? Did they think that space has no meaning without

temporal relevance and the inclusion of one really meant the

inclusion of the other as well? That may probably be the reason, I

am not sure. Do I sound like holding an uncalled for brief for their

act of omission?

 

However, if it is not considered outrageous, can't we not rewrite

pancheekarana on a six-element footing with time included as one of

the elements? The proportions can then be appropriately altered to

arrive at a new set of mathematical equations.

 

This is just a thought by way of discussion. If it can generate

interesting thoughts from other knowledgeable members, I would be

very happy. All the same, pancheekarana or shashteekarana, I am

totally convinced of the essence of advaita. And that is most

important to me.

 

UNQUOTE

 

At my present level of understanding, pancheekarana is neither

science nor symbolism. That nothing can disprove it cannot be a test!

 

Best wishes.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________________________

advaitin, "michael Reidy" <ombhurbhuva@h...> wrote in his

post # 14752

[Guest guest]

> Pancheekarana was discussed in detail

> by this List. However, I don't think any satisfactory

conclusion

> emerged. Although Shri Stig Lundgren-Ji promised to answer the

> question shortly, we haven't still had the benefit of his views

 

 

Well, I am far from sure that my views will make a satisfying

answer... The reason for why I never did any posting on

panchikarana is that several good explanations from other members

appeared on the list before I managed to finish and send my

posting. However, I would be willing to make a try if you like.

It could take a few days, though. I am rather busy right now.

 

Best regards

Stig Lundgren